Global warming discussion III

Status
Not open for further replies.
At the end of they day my angle makes it somewhat pointless to debate the nuances over whether climate change is a man made disaster..

Your "angle - from my perspective gives the fossil fuel companies a free pass..nothing I've read from you says otherwise....you think it'd not a big deal to apportion responsibility....I think it is and given the millions spent on muddying the waters ...so do the fossil fuel purveyors.

Dodge responsibility on one hand, put a hand out for billions in subsidies on the other.
Public is being had.....there is no nuance.
 
Last edited:
A market pricing mechanism to make the inevitable transition from fossil fuels to other fuels happen sooner rather than later. The fossil fuel industry has fought this tooth and nail, they want to burn all the fossil fuels now, as fast as they can.

and one that takes into account externalities....by proper accounting of health and environment costs.....it is more costly to society burning coal than the value we get out of it by some accounts.

Due to its abundance and low market price, coal combustion is the largest source of energy production in the world, accounting for 40% of all electricity worldwide. In the USA it accounts for 45% of electricity generation, and approximately 75% in Australia.

Unfortunately, coal combustion is a major contributor to global greenhouse gas emissions as well, accounting for 30% of total anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions worldwide, and 72% of CO2 emissions from global power generation. In addition, non-power generation uses increase its contribution to global human CO2 emissions to a whopping 41% (as of 2005).

Coal Externalities
A major problem with coal is that its full costs are not reflected in its market price, and thus while we may seemingly purchase and burn coal cheaply, in reality we are paying a much higher cost in the long run, if we look at the big picture. Economists refer to the impacts on human and environmental health which are not reflected in the price of coal as "externalities". Those who benefit from the seemingly cheap electricity don't pay for these externalities directly, but the public eventually has to pay in the form of medical bills, environmental cleanups, etc.

In a new report published in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Epstein et al. (2011) do a full cost accounting for the life cycle of coal, taking these externalities into account. Among the factors included in this analysis were:

government coal subsidies
increased illness and mortality due to mining pollution
climate change from greenhouse gas emissions
particulates causing air pollution
loss of biodiversity
cost to taxpayers of environmental monitoring and cleanup
decreased property values
infrastructure damages from mudslides resulting from mountaintop removal
infrastructure damage from mine blasting
impacts of acid rain resulting from coal combustion byproducts
water pollution

Note that most of these external factors do not apply to most non-fossil fuel energy sources. The majority of the externality costs come from reduction in air quality, contribution to climate change, and impacts to public health. Epstein et al. find that the total cost of these externalities ranges from approximately 9 to 27 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity generated, with a median of approximately 18 cents per kWh. The authors note that this is a conservative estimate, because they have not accounted for every associated impact.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/true-cost-of-coal-power.html

The criminality comes in continuing to produce a destructive product AND prevent by lobbying the implementation of emission free power source legislation.

4 States Where Solar is Under Attack by Koch-Funded Front ...
ecowatch.com/2015/03/27/solar-under-attack-koch-brothers/
Mar 27, 2015 - And they fight like a pair of angry rattlesnakes to defend their right to make still more ... to make energy generation cleaner and more environmentally friendly. .... the “Electricity Freedom Act.” Ohio's standards required that a quarter of the .... I'm confused what gives you the right to charge this for your power?

http://ecowatch.com/2015/03/27/solar-under-attack-koch-brothers/

No free passes....they made their billions...now is time to pay for the consequences.
 
Anyone who invokes "swings" while at the same time referring to their supposed knowledge climate "data" clearly isn't looking at actual data. There has been a swing and it has gone one direction, inexorably upwards.
 
At the end of they day my angle makes it somewhat pointless to debate the nuances over whether climate change is a man made disaster... We have so many other issues that motivate me to see sustainable practices as beneficial to human well-being that it's mostly the same outcome if it can be implemented pragmatically. That's why I'm not terribly adamant about perpetuating a debate over it.
The debate is not an end in itself, obviously. Even for the deniers (who are the only ones perpetuating it now) it's just a tactic.

A remarkable achievement of the Right over the last few decades is to make "sustainable" a politically toxic term, by associating it with thoroughly demonised environmentalists. This has been done without ever having to explain the advantages of unsustainability. The Dark Arts of Persuasion will one day be the death of us all ...
 
.

Is global cooling next ?
.


Are basic climate facts still not known to Arnold Martin :p?
For the last 35 years the output from the Sun has been declining a little and the Earth Has warmed!
Climate scientists have modeled the effect of a new Maunder Minimum - it is minimal (reducing warming by 10% from memory).
 
Your "angle - from my perspective gives the fossil fuel companies a free pass..nothing I've read from you says otherwise....you think it'd not a big deal to apportion responsibility....I think it is and given the millions spent on muddying the waters ...so do the fossil fuel purveyors.

Dodge responsibility on one hand, put a hand out for billions in subsidies on the other.
Public is being had.....there is no nuance.
Then you are obviously making up arguments about my beliefs. Believe what you want, i posted a solution i thought would be reasonable for getting both ends of the debate on track. You kneejerked your response at the slightest hint that i dont fall in lockstep on the climate debate and suggested my position gives a free pass to power and fuel companies when i made it fairly obvious that the same instittions are what impede people even from voluntarily implementing sustainable technologies. You clearly read incorrectly, and for that matter about the fact that while i might be skeptical to a degree on the climate debate my views on it are not black and white. There are plenty of reasons that sustainability needs to be a priority, and there are a number of challenhes to it, best way IMO to adress is to go for common intetests where they are available
 
Last edited:
.

On May 4, 2007 - UN scientists gave us eight years to avoid planetary doom. That date passed yesterday

.
 
Morano at ClimateDepot if my google-fu is working. Shows how poor the arguements are getting...
 
May 4, 2007 was the date of publishing the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. And that's about as far as I want to go, because that is an enormous paper to try to dig through.

Hi,
You did not make the claim, I have read the IPCC document, so I am curious what spin there was.
 
Ever heard of stopping distance? Or are you one of those drivers that tailgates, just assuming your privilege of never having to respond to the traffic you are following?


Heh, yeah...

Scientists: "Look. We're heading for that cliff at a very high rate of speed. No one seems interested in actually steering clear or even applying the brakes. Even if we let off the gas and let friction slow us down, if we pass this point, we're screwed. ... Welp, we just passed that point I mentioned."

Idiots: "Haha! We haven't fallen off the cliff, so you must be an idiot!"
 
.

On May 4, 2007 - UN scientists gave us eight years to avoid planetary doom. That date passed yesterday

.

And right on cue...

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/c...-million-years-noaa-says-20150506-ggvufx.html

The amount of heat-trapping carbon dioxide in the atmosphere averaged more than 400 parts per million globally for the first time ever in March, according to US government measurements.

The recording was based on air samples taken from 40 sites around the world, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said in a statement Wednesday. It's the highest level of the gas in at least a million years.

Increasing CO2 emissions are blamed for global climate change that causes stronger storms, melting Arctic ice and rising sea levels, according to scientists. This is the first time the emissions have reached that level on a global basis -- sites in the Arctic and Hawaii recorded CO2 concentrations over 400 ppm in 2012 and 2013, respectively.

"This marks the fact that humans burning fossil fuels have caused global carbon dioxide concentrations to rise more than 120 parts per million since pre-industrial times," Pieter Tans, lead scientist for the agency's Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network, said in the statement. Half of that rise has occurred since 1980, he said.

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/2013/12/03/what-does-400-ppm-look-like/

The Pliocene is the geologic era between five million and three million years ago. Scientists have come to regard it as the most recent period in history when the atmosphere’s heat-trapping ability was as it is now and thus as our guide for things to come.

Recent estimates suggest CO2 levels reached as much as 415 parts per million (ppm) during the Pliocene. With that came global average temperatures that eventually reached 3 or 4 degrees C (5.4-7.2 degrees F) higher than today’s and as much as 10 degrees C (18 degrees F) warmer at the poles. Sea level ranged between five and 40 meters (16 to 131 feet) higher than today.

As for what life was like then, scientists rely on fossil records to recreate where plants and animals lived and in what quantity. Pliocene fossil records show that the climate was generally warmer and wetter than today. Maps of Pliocene vegetation record forests growing on Ellesmere Island in the Canadian Arctic, and savannas and woodlands spreading over what is now North African desert. Both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets were smaller than today during the warmest parts of the Pliocene.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, the global warming chicken littles are numerous here. The sky hasn't fallen yet, but the wolf has eaten a lot of the coup.

I take solace in the thought that this guy lives on a beach in Florida so will in all likelihood live to regret being so wilfully ignorant...
 
[qimg]https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/--SKUH0XInGk/VUSeKVPiAcI/AAAAAAAANGk/yWfNL6UguVA/s800/Screen%2520Shot%25202015-05-02%2520at%2520May%252C%25202%2520%2520%2520%25202015%2520%2520%2520%25205.51.16%2520PM.jpg[/qimg]

care to explain this Arnold?? .....seems your thesis lacks evidence :rolleyes:

And wait til you see what 2015 holds in store....:eye-poppi


Care to explain this ?

Global Temperature down in April, just 7/100ths of a degree above normal

"Guess what? I am Sooooooo not going to lose any sleep over an anomaly of seven one-thousandths of a degree."

"How do I adjust my air con temperature dial to account for that?"

Co2 passed 400 ppm and Global temp 7/100ths of a degree above normal ?

How do you even measure that statistically insignificant amount of "warming" ????
And then there is this ... care to explain ?

Sea Ice News Volume 6 #1: Antarctic Sea Ice Expands To New Record
Bipolar disorder continues, Arctic reaches lowest maximum extent while the Antarctic sets new records

Time to take a quick look at the sea ice situation down under, as I must have missed it on BBC News. According to NSIDC, a new record high has been set for April, beating last year. Ice is above average virtually all around the continent. Meanwhile, according to Bob Tisdale, Southern Ocean surface temperatures continue to plunge. It really does not take a genius to add two and two together. –Paul Homewood, Not A Lot Of People Know That, 3 May 2015


Try looking at the big picture guys :cool:

"RACookPE1978 May 5, 2015 at 11:19 am
This “recent” Antarctic sea ice increase has been going on since 1992.

Since 2006, at ever-increasing rates, with record-breaking sea ice extents and sea ice anomalies.
Since 2006-2007, the Arctic sea ice has been oscillating strongly, but not decreasing.
Further, when the entire continent is surrounded by record-breaking sea ice for an entire month, the increased reflectivity of the sea ice – compared to the dark ocean it covers, DOES make a difference in the earth’s heat budget.

In contrast, for 8 months of the year, loss of Arctic sea ice from “normal” increases heat loss from the Arctic Ocean.

When the “excess” sea ice around Antarctica is larger than the entire Greenland ice cap, when the Antarctic sea ice remains above 2 std deviations above normal for the most part of 2-1/2 years now … One small part of one peninsula that is itself only 3% of the continent’s entire area can be ignored as trivial."
 
The NOAA global temperature figures for April aren't out yet. This is their report for March, and the first quarter of 2015:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201503

The average temperature across global land and ocean surface temperatures combined for March 2015 was 0.85°C (1.53°F) higher than the 20th century average of 12.7°C (54.9°F). This marks the highest March temperature in the 136-year period of record, surpassing the previous record of 2010 by 0.05°C (0.09°F).

The first quarter of 2015 was the warmest such period on record across the world's land and ocean surfaces, at 0.82°C (1.48°F) above the 20th century average, surpassing the previous record of 2002 by 0.05°C (0.09°F).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom